Jump to content

Mega Man 3: The Passing of the Blue Crown used without permission?


Stuka
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, I am not sure if this has been brought up before or not. Sorry if it has.

 

YouTube informed me that I had a copyright violation for using  "Mega Man 3: The Passing of the Blue Crown" which is from here on OCR (Which I uploaded in 2009). The song was released here back in 2008. However, the copyright claim is from "The Orchard Music" and claimed it matched a song called No Quiero Ser by Danny el TDJ.

 

I thought at first this was strange, so I listened to the song. And it is using Blue Crown in its entirety as the music for the song, with the guy singing over the top. This is on an album that is being sold for profit.

 

So my question is, did this guy actually get the rights for this from OCR, or did he basically steal it? I have no clue who to contact here on it. The guy is now making money off my video, which gets hardly any views, but doesn't seem right for him to be making money off work posted on OCR.

 

You can listen to his song here, it is song #4: https://play.google.com/music/preview/Tigvdzt56zdkxdmoqpo7pdpsysa?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=buylink&u=0

 

Again, sorry if this is the wrong area. Just wanted to bring it to the attention of somebody here.

 

EDIT: The purpose of this post is NOT the claim on my video. Its the guy using OCR music for his own profit. Bolded this bit so that its more clear that its the main reason for this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah a bit of looking around on YouTube and there are a lot of people with false copyright notices. Or others that have had notices where the song do match, but were being used by somebody else that should not have been using it.

 

I guess the question is should file a dispute. I can leave it, but then it means The Orchard is making money off of it. Although granted the video has only had three views in the last month, so its not like it would be much. I know I am not the owner of the copyright, but they aren't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah a bit of looking around on YouTube and there are a lot of people with false copyright notices. Or others that have had notices where the song do match, but were being used by somebody else that should not have been using it.

 

I guess the question is should file a dispute. I can leave it, but then it means The Orchard is making money off of it. Although granted the video has only had three views in the last month, so its not like it would be much. I know I am not the owner of the copyright, but they aren't either.

You should still do it.  It seems like the copyright trolls tend to win these disputes for some bizarre reason, but the more complaints against a particular troll, the more likely YouTube will figure it out.  Do it for the greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've run into a similar situation. I did dispute it, but then the copyright claimers just denied it. Nothing else happened, but whatever, I still have my account intact. I decided to let it go to avoid actual (and wrongful) copyright strikes.

 

Although... I dunno, maybe those claims disappeared, because I don't see them at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, the issue here is not a bogus copyright claim against a YouTube video. The issue is the wholesale plagiarism of an OC ReMix being used in a commercial work.

This is why I brought it up here. Not because the claim on my video, but because of the guy stealing music from this site and using as his own. I would not be surprised if every song on that album was stolen, styles on it are all over the place.

I just hope you guys can nail him for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This copyright trolling by Orchard is why a bunch of speedrunners and LPers left YouTube for twitch. It seems that The Orchard Group was bought up by Sony this year, but they haven't stopped their trolling. This is what happens:

 

1. They either find two different versions of the same song (regardless if it's public domain or if one copy is stolen) and claim one of them is the copyright owner that they have distribution rights for, or they use an unrelated song and claim that they have distribution rights.

2. They file the copyright claim with the copyright claim system on YouTube.

3. Orchard gains ad revenue from whatever videos they claim copyright on for the duration of their claim. They will defend their claim due to this and it's only removed once the claim expires.

4. Evil lawyers gleefully suck in ad revenue from innocents.

 

Go google "orchard copyright scam" and you'll see people complaining that they've claimed copyright on public domain songs like The Star Spangled Banner or Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. They've also claimed copyright on artists uploading their own original music. Why nobody has gotten a class-action lawsuit against these assholes, I don't know. This guy says how to get the claim removed (he legally purchased a stock song to use for his channel), but it doesn't solve the issue of these claims still happening.

 

If OCR has any decent legal guns, I wonder if bringing this up in a legal sense to Orchard's parent company, Sony, would do anything. Sony is crazy about copyright, so if a lawsuit is brought up that brings to light that they own copyright scammers they might do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello David,

 
We have released all claims and removed this release from Content ID. Please let us know if there anything else we can assist you with in the future.
 
Regards,
The Orchard Disputes Team
 
I haven't had time to check, but I did just receive this, and it bodes well. It addresses the content ID match but doesn't remove the offending material. I'll see what can be done in that regard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
I haven't had time to check, but I did just receive this, and it bodes well. It addresses the content ID match but doesn't remove the offending material. I'll see what can be done in that regard.

 

 

The copyright notice was removed from my video, so they are at least truthful when they say they pulled all claims regarding that track. So a step in the right direction.

 

But it does not address the guy that used the song to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...